Ungrateful gits!

[Bob78164]

As for Gaithner, the IMF puts out via e-mail, hard copy, and staff meetings, the procedures to follow for paying taxes for the US employees. Seems the vast majority of those employees manage to get it right.

That's simply not accurate. According to the IRS, approximately half of employees in this position (typically employed by either the IMF or an embassy) screw up this issue. Most people who get what looks like a W-2 reasonably assume that they are employees and therefore do not need to worry about the employer portion of FICA taxes. Thanks to the Bretton Woods Treaty, in the case of the IMF, that reasonable assumption is incorrect. It was particularly reasonable in Geithner's case because he hired professional help in 2003 and 2004 and his tax guy got it wrong (in writing). That's almost certainly why the IRS did not assess penalties. --Bob

I curious as to what those W-2's looked like. Did Box 4 and 6 have Zeros in them?

Geithner paid the employee portion of FICA. But he was also supposed to pay the employer part of FICA (which isn't reported on any W-2 that I've ever seen), and that's what he and his tax guy screwed up. --Bob

[earendel]

In that sense, I suppose, it's Obama's "fault" for wanting to have high standards. Perhaps they are too high.

Full credit for keeping the faith.

Wow...


False analogy comparing Truman's vetting and Obama's.

The issue isn't how well or poorly Obama and/or Truman vetted their appointments. It's about accepting responsibility. Truman did. Obama hasn't.

Truman wasn't above blaming the Republicans in Congress.

I don't know how you can claim that Obama "wants higher standards." It's another case of apologizing and explaining your way through his missteps in order to come up with some convoluted line of reasoning that allows you to keep your preconceived notions about him.

I have no "preconceived notions". For the most part I've avoided the political threads because I "don't have a dog in the hunt". I am weary of what appears to be the beginning of four years of "gotcha" posts regarding Obama's deeds (or misdeeds) from someone who can't admit that his candidate didn't win. Believe me, if we were discussing President H. R. Clinton's appointees, I doubt you'd be making all these comments. Someone else undoubtedly would. As for me, further deponent sayeth not.

[Flybrick]

But he was also supposed to pay the employer part of FICA (which isn't reported on any W-2 that I've ever seen), and that's what he and his tax guy screwed up. --Bob

Damn those instructions/reminders issued by the IMF anyway!

Which, of course, does explain much about the IMF and it's abilities as well, but I digress.

[TheConfessor]

I'm not qualified to express an opinion in this thread, since I don't know what an "ungrateful git" is, or to whom it refers.

[Flybrick]

I'm not qualified to express an opinion in this thread, since I don't know what an "ungrateful git" is, or to whom it refers.

"git" colloquial term for 'it,' 'you,' 'them,' or any other specific pointing out of an individual or group.

"Ungrateful gits" are the reporters who dare shout questions at Him. After all He's done for them (like toss reporters who wrote unfavorable articles off his campaign plane or tricked them while He was negotiating with Hillary Clinton or ignore their questions.) Their behavior shows ingratitude for the gravity and import of the time. It's time for hope and change, don't question it, just tout it.

[Estonut]

"git" colloquial term for 'it,' 'you,' 'them,' or any other specific pointing out of an individual or group.

According to Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: 1git
Pronunciation: \ˈgit\
Function: noun
Etymology: variant of get, term of abuse, from 2get
Date: 1929
British : a foolish or worthless person

My British friends always use it derogatorily.

[Flybrick]

As the phrase was "ungrateful gits," I propose that my definition is close enough to the 'book' definition. (note, I'd also heard it used by much older relatives in the South growing up, so perhaps it remained from the Scotch-Irish of their ancestry.)

Kinda like paying the taxes one thinks one owes instead of what one actually owes...

[TheCalvinator24]

As the phrase was "ungrateful gits," I propose that my definition is close enough to the 'book' definition. (note, I'd also heard it used by much older relatives in the South growing up, so perhaps it remained from the Scotch-Irish of their ancestry.)

Kinda like paying the taxes one thinks one owes instead of what one actually owes...

Just a minor pet peeve (and one I picked up from a history professor). People are not Scotch.

The correct usage is Scots-Irish.

[TheConfessor]

The correct usage is Scots-Irish.

I just call them ungrateful Scits.

[Flybrick]

Cal, quite right. "Scots-Irish."

See, I'm all about 'change.'

[smilergrogan]

See, I'm all about 'change.'

Do you speak any languages besides Snark?

[Jeemie]

I see it as Obama's problem because of what he has been saying since he started running for President and his words right after he became President.

Another opinion I have is that we put way too much blame and way too much expectation on just one person--the President.

Where was this opinion when everything bad that happened in the world was being blamed on George W. Bush?

[gotribego26]

As for Gaithner, the IMF puts out via e-mail, hard copy, and staff meetings, the procedures to follow for paying taxes for the US employees. Seems the vast majority of those employees manage to get it right.

That's simply not accurate. According to the IRS, approximately half of employees in this position (typically employed by either the IMF or an embassy) screw up this issue. Most people who get what looks like a W-2 reasonably assume that they are employees and therefore do not need to worry about the employer portion of FICA taxes. Thanks to the Bretton Woods Treaty, in the case of the IMF, that reasonable assumption is incorrect. It was particularly reasonable in Geithner's case because he hired professional help in 2003 and 2004 and his tax guy got it wrong (in writing). That's almost certainly why the IRS did not assess penalties. --Bob

I curious as to what those W-2's looked like. Did Box 4 and 6 have Zeros in them?

I agree with this question - I still find the issue very wierd - I get my portion withheld, but then pay the employer's portion for the IMF. I know about self-employment taxes for Schedule C income and FICA taxes on a W-2 - I didn't realize anyone was in the situation that the IMF creates.

As Bob keeps saying - CPAs didn't get this right.

Daischle's problem seems much worse to me - hopw do you forgert about $200,000 in consulting income?

[Ritterskoop]

Gits are what you eat with eggs and toast for breakfast.

[Bob78164]

Daischle's problem seems much worse to me - hopw do you forgert about $200,000 in consulting income?

I understood the number to be $83,333, which constituted one month's payment. Apparently, Daschle relied on his 1099, which got it wrong. I have a lot less sympathy for this mistake -- self-employed folks are supposed to know better than to rely on 1099s. --Bob